Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28193619›Full record

Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017

Improving specialist drug prescribing in primary care using task and error analysis: an observational study.

Narinder Chana, Talya Porat, Cate Whittlesea, Brendan Delaney

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Narinder ChanaNHS Richmond Clinical Commissioning Group, Twickenham, London.
Talya PoratDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London.
Cate WhittleseaSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Durham.
Brendan DelaneyDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic prescribing has benefited from computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs); however, no published studies have evaluated the potential for a CDSS to support GPs in prescribing specialist drugs.

aimTo identify potential weaknesses and errors in the existing process of prescribing specialist drugs that could be addressed in the development of a CDSS. DESIGN AND

settingSemi-structured interviews with key informants followed by an observational study involving GPs in the UK.

methodTwelve key informants were interviewed to investigate the use of CDSSs in the UK. Nine GPs were observed while performing case scenarios depicting requests from hospitals or patients to prescribe a specialist drug. Activity diagrams, hierarchical task analysis, and systematic human error reduction and prediction approach analyses were performed.

resultsThe current process of prescribing specialist drugs by GPs is prone to error. Errors of omission due to lack of information were the most common errors, which could potentially result in a GP prescribing a specialist drug that should only be prescribed in hospitals, or prescribing a specialist drug without reference to a shared care protocol. Half of all possible errors in the prescribing process had a high probability of occurrence.

conclusionA CDSS supporting GPs during the process of prescribing specialist drugs is needed. This could, first, support the decision making of whether or not to undertake prescribing, and, second, provide drug-specific parameters linked to shared care protocols, which could reduce the errors identified and increase patient safety.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPharmaceutical PreparationsPrimary Health CareAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingHumansMedication ErrorsPatient SafetyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality ImprovementUnited KingdomPharmaceutical Preparationsclinical decision support systemdrug prescribinggeneral practiceprimary health carespecialist drugs

Identifiers

PMID28193619
PMCPMC5325657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.